“There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up?” The question in Faulkner’s acceptance speech, “When will I be blown up?” is something I never addressed in my paper, but found it interesting. After talking about this in class I was curious what everyone’s opinions were. It seems to be a very time period specific idea. Do you think exclusively worrying about the present violence, is an attitude people maintain today? Another possible explanation of this question can be related to a stories plotline. In this case, readers are only concerned with the action of the story and when the climax will occur. If it is about how people were only concerned with when they will die, then life had a meaningless tone back then. What are your thoughts on the meaning of this question? - kec-c Feb 25, 2008
Well, I think that the Cold War arms race was definitely a key subject in American lives at the time. People were going through atomic bomb drills in school (like those were going to do any good anyway). There was a great fear of the Communists starting an apocalyptic war that would end humanity. I think that we're a little less worried about it anymore, as the USSR has dissolved. Countries like Iran and North Korea are threatening, yes, but they don't have nearly the size, prowess, or amount of weapons that the Russians had back then.
I don't believe that their lives were meaningless because of it, but it was just a natural worry that was instilled in people of all ages because they didn't want to get into a massive war with the USSR.- NVa-c Feb 25, 2008
I agree that a lot of this fear was created because of the Cold War and the general attitudes of the post World War II era. I think that Faulkner was trying to say that people had different priorities at the end of the 1940's. No one worried about the problems of the human heart and spirit because there were much more realistic issues at play. However, Faulkner argues that unless writers forget this idea of fear, they will write "as though he stood among and watched the end of man". I think that during this time many writers wrote novels with a basic plot line like KEc mentioned leaving little room for Faulkner's style. Faulkner asks writers to "help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding them of courage and honor and hope and pride..." and this involves writing about the human condition as opposed to stories with a conflict and a rising action. - KSm-c Feb 25, 2008
I think that Faulkner was warning writer to not write exclusively for the times, that writers needed to make their works universal. It is an easy trap to fall into when all that anyone is concerned about is whether they will get bombed or not. It's easy to forget about universal, long lasting ideals when your entire world is consumed with a certain fear. Today our fears of the A-Bomb are not so intense. I would say that we don't have a major societal fear. Most of us don't walk into school each day wondering if we would die or not. But there is a fear of terrorism and at least for me, a growing fear of school shootings. Much of our writing is going to reflect our attitudes and fear is a major factor in determining an attitude. I think that Faulkner was warning against writing for a specific fear or idea that is very time/location specific. While a story may be about a specific event or time, there should be more overarching themes that most people can relate to. - adi-c Feb 25, 2008
Now I do understand the correlation of "blown up" to the atomic bomb fears, but I had originally interpreted it differently. To me, I thought that Faulkner's question was just a more descriptive way of saying, "when will I die?" Yeah, I probably should have connected it to the times, considering how Faulkner is a genious of a writer and nothing is one dimensional, but I didn't. But, even with that said, I did put deeper thought into it. I thought that Faulkner was probably saying that this is the main problem of the human heart, but that there are other problems in conflict with itself that are of equal or more importance. That death is not a person's only suffering, but that suffering and the depth of the human heart is also discovered through life. Did anyone else have this idea or was this completely wrong? I thought I had something, can someone let me know please? - cdu-c Feb 25, 2008
I definitely agree with cdu. I didn't really think about the cold war, but I thought that Faulkner was warning authors from focusing on simple issues like death. We are all going to die, really, there is no way around that, but there are so many things in life we can miss if we spend the whole time worrying about when we are going to die. Therefore, I assumed that Faulkner was talking about focusing on life and the qualities that make worthwhile, because death is immediate, inevitable, and it will be over. Life, on the other hand, is so much richer and full of depth, and thus we should focus on the depths of life experience, rather than living in fear of the one moment in which we will die. - lsi-c Feb 25, 2008
I think this question is very basic in meaning. It is a warning in two ways. First, that our world should try to stay away from wars and acts of violence that only spread fear. Next that if we are in a situation of war or danger, and there is nothing we can do about it, we must teach ourselves to forget that fear. Why? Because an environment that is dominated by fear is one that does not foster or nurture art. Art comes from people who are comfortable. Who know where their next meal is coming from and can count on the world not blowing up the next day. Fear and stress are polarizing. They take our ability to think freely and truly reflect on the world around us away. Think about when people lived in caves and were hunted by sabet tooth tigers, wolves, or other humans- basically when we weren't on the top of the food chain. We didn't make much art back then. We hunted and we fought. The physically strong and not the intellectually or artistically strong were mighty. Faulkner is basically just making a comment on how polarizing fear can be to the artists and writers of a culture.- MKo-c Feb 26, 2008
I actually think this quote from Faulkner still applies to today what with all the worries about terrorism and such as ever-present issues in our lives. I like what MKo had to say because it's true that times of fear do not necessarily nurture art, but I kind of disagree because it's when this danger is present that I think people are sometimes motivated to do more than they otherwise might do; they might become more productive in a sense and perhaps more prolific. Still, I've got to go with Faulkner and believe that it is a sad world when our central question is "when will I be blown up?" It's sad that we have such a focus on the end almost like when you're watching a movie for the first time and you watch the ending before you even watch the rest of the movie because it just sort of ruins the ride of the movie and takes some of the mystery because you know how it's going to end.
I don't know how clear I made this in class, but I hope I can make it clearer here that I believe what Faulkner was getting at is that the focus should be more on the here and now as opposed to the future because the future might be bleak, but who cares because we should take advantage of what we have now and not focus ourselves on things that are out of our hands like when our lives are going to end. I think in terms of As I Lay Dying Faulkner would say that it's best that we as readers just go along for the ride with the Bundrens and just focus on the moments that we're in instead of constantly looking for where the book is going; just let the novel take you where it will take you and let the end come when it comes. Face it, this novel wouldn't be as endearing if you knew how it ended before it even started because even though it might help you understand more about some of the characters, it sort of kills some of the mystery and intrigue of the journey through the novel. I think Faulkner believed in making the best of what we have and not worrying about this constant question of when everything's going to end.- KRi-c Feb 26, 2008
Faulkner's speech definitely still applies to today because fear still runs rampant in this world. I agree that the enemies that are out there today are not as foreboding as a nuclear-armed USSR; however, terrorists, who can operate pretty much anywhere, gaining access to nuclear technology is just as if not more terrifying because, unlike the USSR, they have nothing to lose if they use it--no major targets for attack. Fear is still used in journalism and "patriotic" literature: Faulkner's qualms with the literary world are still widespread today. Fear and other human emotions are used as the basis for books, scripts, articles, and other pieces of work that should be based on the truths of humanity like love, joy, or even more pessimistic things like sadness. If one only focuses on fear, then he or she forgets either why he or she is afraid to begin with or the real danger of the fear; this is the blind terror that gripped the nation in the Red Scare of the 1950s, the first few years after 9/11, and it is what Faulkner says books cannot be based on. They need to be based on real human truths so that, if there is fear, it has a solid basis and a means to an end. A book has to be tied to the human spirit, not human emotions, to present an accurate view of the human condition and give solutions to the book's conflicts. A book that is based solely on emotions and fear may raise issues that are not answered, and it is this uncertainty that Faulkner warns writers not to give the public, because it is this uncertainty that does harm and frenzy the public. - dsU-c Feb 26, 2008
I agree with cdu. Though he was I'm sure making a connection to the times, I think that he was also making a general statement that death is not the only conflict a human has, and in fact is not even the most important one. Also, I think that Faulkner's message can apply to all times, not just the Cold War period. Fear is universal. It will always be present (if you pay attention in religion class, it's because of sin =] ) in every culture and every time period. People will always have fear and Faulkner was trying to state that authors have the task of pulling people out of their physical fear and lifting them up with the good in life, such as love and honesty and pride, etc. - mmi-c Feb 27, 2008
I understood the fear of literally being blown up, but one thing that I thought was really interesting that KEc said was that readers are always waiting for the climax. Immediately thought of when we were reading Jacob's Room and everyone was making such a big deal about how it didn't have a traditional plot line, and that there was no clear climax. I think that when we worry so much about what the end is going to be that we miss the point of the novel, or poem, or whatever we are reading. The events leading up to the climax are probably more important than the climax itself when it comes to revealing universal truths, and uplifting mankind. If we are so concerned with how we are going to die we miss out on everything in between, our life. Perhaps he is also saying that young authors should not just write to get to the climax, but to focus in on the importance of everything else, just as everyone should live their lives focused on life, and not on being blown up. - jko-c Feb 28, 2008
Well, I think that the Cold War arms race was definitely a key subject in American lives at the time. People were going through atomic bomb drills in school (like those were going to do any good anyway). There was a great fear of the Communists starting an apocalyptic war that would end humanity. I think that we're a little less worried about it anymore, as the USSR has dissolved. Countries like Iran and North Korea are threatening, yes, but they don't have nearly the size, prowess, or amount of weapons that the Russians had back then.
I don't believe that their lives were meaningless because of it, but it was just a natural worry that was instilled in people of all ages because they didn't want to get into a massive war with the USSR.-
I agree that a lot of this fear was created because of the Cold War and the general attitudes of the post World War II era. I think that Faulkner was trying to say that people had different priorities at the end of the 1940's. No one worried about the problems of the human heart and spirit because there were much more realistic issues at play. However, Faulkner argues that unless writers forget this idea of fear, they will write "as though he stood among and watched the end of man". I think that during this time many writers wrote novels with a basic plot line like KEc mentioned leaving little room for Faulkner's style. Faulkner asks writers to "help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding them of courage and honor and hope and pride..." and this involves writing about the human condition as opposed to stories with a conflict and a rising action.
-
I think that Faulkner was warning writer to not write exclusively for the times, that writers needed to make their works universal. It is an easy trap to fall into when all that anyone is concerned about is whether they will get bombed or not. It's easy to forget about universal, long lasting ideals when your entire world is consumed with a certain fear. Today our fears of the A-Bomb are not so intense. I would say that we don't have a major societal fear. Most of us don't walk into school each day wondering if we would die or not. But there is a fear of terrorism and at least for me, a growing fear of school shootings. Much of our writing is going to reflect our attitudes and fear is a major factor in determining an attitude. I think that Faulkner was warning against writing for a specific fear or idea that is very time/location specific. While a story may be about a specific event or time, there should be more overarching themes that most people can relate to.
-
Now I do understand the correlation of "blown up" to the atomic bomb fears, but I had originally interpreted it differently. To me, I thought that Faulkner's question was just a more descriptive way of saying, "when will I die?" Yeah, I probably should have connected it to the times, considering how Faulkner is a genious of a writer and nothing is one dimensional, but I didn't. But, even with that said, I did put deeper thought into it. I thought that Faulkner was probably saying that this is the main problem of the human heart, but that there are other problems in conflict with itself that are of equal or more importance. That death is not a person's only suffering, but that suffering and the depth of the human heart is also discovered through life. Did anyone else have this idea or was this completely wrong? I thought I had something, can someone let me know please? -
I definitely agree with cdu. I didn't really think about the cold war, but I thought that Faulkner was warning authors from focusing on simple issues like death. We are all going to die, really, there is no way around that, but there are so many things in life we can miss if we spend the whole time worrying about when we are going to die. Therefore, I assumed that Faulkner was talking about focusing on life and the qualities that make worthwhile, because death is immediate, inevitable, and it will be over. Life, on the other hand, is so much richer and full of depth, and thus we should focus on the depths of life experience, rather than living in fear of the one moment in which we will die. -
I think this question is very basic in meaning. It is a warning in two ways. First, that our world should try to stay away from wars and acts of violence that only spread fear. Next that if we are in a situation of war or danger, and there is nothing we can do about it, we must teach ourselves to forget that fear. Why? Because an environment that is dominated by fear is one that does not foster or nurture art. Art comes from people who are comfortable. Who know where their next meal is coming from and can count on the world not blowing up the next day. Fear and stress are polarizing. They take our ability to think freely and truly reflect on the world around us away. Think about when people lived in caves and were hunted by sabet tooth tigers, wolves, or other humans- basically when we weren't on the top of the food chain. We didn't make much art back then. We hunted and we fought. The physically strong and not the intellectually or artistically strong were mighty. Faulkner is basically just making a comment on how polarizing fear can be to the artists and writers of a culture.-
I actually think this quote from Faulkner still applies to today what with all the worries about terrorism and such as ever-present issues in our lives. I like what MKo had to say because it's true that times of fear do not necessarily nurture art, but I kind of disagree because it's when this danger is present that I think people are sometimes motivated to do more than they otherwise might do; they might become more productive in a sense and perhaps more prolific. Still, I've got to go with Faulkner and believe that it is a sad world when our central question is "when will I be blown up?" It's sad that we have such a focus on the end almost like when you're watching a movie for the first time and you watch the ending before you even watch the rest of the movie because it just sort of ruins the ride of the movie and takes some of the mystery because you know how it's going to end.
I don't know how clear I made this in class, but I hope I can make it clearer here that I believe what Faulkner was getting at is that the focus should be more on the here and now as opposed to the future because the future might be bleak, but who cares because we should take advantage of what we have now and not focus ourselves on things that are out of our hands like when our lives are going to end. I think in terms of As I Lay Dying Faulkner would say that it's best that we as readers just go along for the ride with the Bundrens and just focus on the moments that we're in instead of constantly looking for where the book is going; just let the novel take you where it will take you and let the end come when it comes. Face it, this novel wouldn't be as endearing if you knew how it ended before it even started because even though it might help you understand more about some of the characters, it sort of kills some of the mystery and intrigue of the journey through the novel. I think Faulkner believed in making the best of what we have and not worrying about this constant question of when everything's going to end.-
Faulkner's speech definitely still applies to today because fear still runs rampant in this world. I agree that the enemies that are out there today are not as foreboding as a nuclear-armed USSR; however, terrorists, who can operate pretty much anywhere, gaining access to nuclear technology is just as if not more terrifying because, unlike the USSR, they have nothing to lose if they use it--no major targets for attack. Fear is still used in journalism and "patriotic" literature: Faulkner's qualms with the literary world are still widespread today. Fear and other human emotions are used as the basis for books, scripts, articles, and other pieces of work that should be based on the truths of humanity like love, joy, or even more pessimistic things like sadness. If one only focuses on fear, then he or she forgets either why he or she is afraid to begin with or the real danger of the fear; this is the blind terror that gripped the nation in the Red Scare of the 1950s, the first few years after 9/11, and it is what Faulkner says books cannot be based on. They need to be based on real human truths so that, if there is fear, it has a solid basis and a means to an end. A book has to be tied to the human spirit, not human emotions, to present an accurate view of the human condition and give solutions to the book's conflicts. A book that is based solely on emotions and fear may raise issues that are not answered, and it is this uncertainty that Faulkner warns writers not to give the public, because it is this uncertainty that does harm and frenzy the public.
-
I agree with cdu. Though he was I'm sure making a connection to the times, I think that he was also making a general statement that death is not the only conflict a human has, and in fact is not even the most important one. Also, I think that Faulkner's message can apply to all times, not just the Cold War period. Fear is universal. It will always be present (if you pay attention in religion class, it's because of sin =] ) in every culture and every time period. People will always have fear and Faulkner was trying to state that authors have the task of pulling people out of their physical fear and lifting them up with the good in life, such as love and honesty and pride, etc. -
I understood the fear of literally being blown up, but one thing that I thought was really interesting that KEc said was that readers are always waiting for the climax. Immediately thought of when we were reading Jacob's Room and everyone was making such a big deal about how it didn't have a traditional plot line, and that there was no clear climax. I think that when we worry so much about what the end is going to be that we miss the point of the novel, or poem, or whatever we are reading. The events leading up to the climax are probably more important than the climax itself when it comes to revealing universal truths, and uplifting mankind. If we are so concerned with how we are going to die we miss out on everything in between, our life. Perhaps he is also saying that young authors should not just write to get to the climax, but to focus in on the importance of everything else, just as everyone should live their lives focused on life, and not on being blown up. -